Active Travels, Active Stalls
ckerr4
1. I think this guy Colin's posts are well written, well
thought out, and regardless of whether I agree with him
100%, all his comments seem very reasonable.
He clearly likes Observers and several of the changes the
"OAU" would like to see implemented. And yet the Ex-Seamen
Pirates (the "XSP") broadside the guy, all canons firing,
for any little tack from the party doctrine.
I don't get it. Does raking a guy like this really advance
your cause?
2. It's never clear to me how reflective RSD is of the
general college ultimate population, but I get the
impression that a majority of players are likely OK with
active travel calls, but virtually 100% of players would be
OK with active stall counts.
Is there anyone that thinks active stall counts by an
Observer would be an issue on any level? If so, please state
your case.
3. To a certain extent, whether it's ultimate or basketball,
whether it's a player or a 3rd party, many travel violations
are judgment calls. And frankly, anyone who disagrees with
this is just being disingenuous.
That being the case, and given that there's no real penalty
for many traveling calls in ultimate (and in fact, sometimes
the call is to the offense's advantage), I think the call
has to be initiated by a defender.
http://www.rsdnospam.com/index.php?t=msg&goto=10780&#msg_10780
If it's going to be a judgment call, were either play is
going to be stopped or continue ("play on"), I'd rather the
players be the judge. Let them decide whether it's in their
team's best interest to call a travel or not.
I like 95% of what the XSP is trying to accomplish with the
UOA, but I disagree on this point (and active up/down calls,
so maybe that's 92%).
Can a person sympathize and support the goals of the XSP
without supporting 100% of the doctrine? Or will I have to
walk the plank?
Charles
--
Posted from http://www.rsdnospam.com
boom city
have nothing to do with the XSP. but i agree with colin on other
issues, sideline safety being the most obvious.
and im guessing you should walk the plank.
Reggie Fanelli
> "OAU" would like to see implemented.
---what's the OAU?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And yet the Ex-Seamen
> Pirates (the "XSP") broadside the guy, all canons firing,
> for any little tack from the party doctrine.
---uhm....i've seen replies from myself(an Xseamen and Xirate) and
from The Fan, an Xseamen....
i'm not sure that that counts as an XSP broadside of Colin.
the rest of the folks who prefer active travels to dishing out TMFs
are not seamen or irates, as far as i know.
they are just supporters of an obviously better method of getting
throwers to adhere to the travel rule.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I don't get it. Does raking a guy like this really advance
> your cause?
---yes, i think it helps the cause.
and....we're gonna keep doing what we do, regardless...because we know
it's best of the sport as a whole.
if others want to get with the 'cause' then they are more than welcome
to join in.
and they are....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 2. It's never clear to me how reflective RSD is of the
> general college ultimate population, but I get the
> impression that a majority of players are likely OK with
> active travel calls, but virtually 100% of players would be
> OK with active stall counts.
---hey....raking that guy has got you with the 'cause'.....i guess
it's working.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 3. To a certain extent, whether it's ultimate or basketball,
> whether it's a player or a 3rd party, many travel violations
> are judgment calls. And frankly, anyone who disagrees with
> this is just being disingenuous.
>
> That being the case, and given that there's no real penalty
> for many traveling calls in ultimate (and in fact, sometimes
> the call is to the offense's advantage), I think the call
> has to be initiated by a defender.
----good, you folks keep leaving it to the players....let them call
the travel......you decide if the travel call was accurate or
not....then decide if the person calling the travel was cheating or
just making a good or bad call.....and then decide if you're going to
TMF them or not....and then TMF them or not....
my crew is just gonna call the travels we see....stop play....get
everyone where they were at the time of the call...and then restart
play.........because we're busy trying to make the sport better for
everyone.
jump on the train whenever you're ready.....or dont....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> If it's going to be a judgment call, were either play is
> going to be stopped or continue ("play on"), I'd rather the
> players be the judge. Let them decide whether it's in their
> team's best interest to call a travel or not.
---why should it matter if a travel is in a team's best interest or
not to call?
THAT is the obvious point where our ideologies split.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I like 95% of what the XSP is trying to accomplish with the
> UOA, but I disagree on this point (and active up/down calls,
> so maybe that's 92%).
--theres no XSP charles.
but i see that you've got the UOA correct down here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Can a person sympathize and support the goals of the XSP
> without supporting 100% of the doctrine? Or will I have to
> walk the plank?
---there's no xsp charles.
there's me and thefan...and the fan isn't even part of the UOA.
the other people you're trying to include in the xsp aren't former
seamen nor irates nor UOA.
trying not being a condescending goofball and stick to the topic.
Reggie Fanelli
--thank you boom city for stating my case a few moments before
me.......
there's no xsp....neither in the UOA or in these threads.
ulticritic
>
> 1. I think this guy Colin's posts are well written, well
> thought out, and regardless of whether I agree with him
> 100%, all his comments seem very reasonable.
no big shock there
Peterson
> general college ultimate population, but I get the
> impression that a majority of players are likely OK with
> active travel calls, but virtually 100% of players would be
> OK with active stall counts.
>
> Is there anyone that thinks active stall counts by an
> Observer would be an issue on any level? If so, please state
> your case.
Here are the agruments against active stalls:
1. It is too hard to implement.
2. It is rough on th vocal cords
What more do I need to do to convince you?
I am merely summarizing Colin's stance on the issue. I obviously
disagree with his view.
Peterson
*I am from Wilmington but not an x-seamen or x-irate, I have just
played ultimate and lots of other sports that seem to work pretty well
even with evil refs.
frizbrains
Isn't one other point (and maybe the most important - depending on the
objective of the argument) is that it might not be a good idea to have
active travels at Nationals if the entire season has been spent
playing without active travels (for most teams)?
I thought I read Colin agreeing that active travels will probably
happen, he just doesn't think they should be implemented at
Nationals. Or maybe I'm not following what you guys are arguing
about.
Peterson
travels.
Peterson
ulticritic
>
> Isn't one other point (and maybe the most important - depending on the
> objective of the argument) is that it might not be a good idea to have
> active travels at Nationals if the entire season has been spent
> playing without active travels (for most teams)?
souldnt that be taken up with those in charge of administrating that
event? and didnt they essentially do that very same thing last year??
(tabled experimental stuff that none((few)) of the participants had
experienced prior to any "votes").
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I thought I read Colin agreeing that active travels will probably
> happen, he just doesn't think they should be implemented at
> Nationals.
so isnt that on those upa dumbfucks to make sure the participants get
suffecient experience before hand????
thefan
> On Mar 10, 12:14 pm, frizbrains <frizbra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Isn't one other point (and maybe the most important - depending on the
> > objective of the argument) is that it might not be a good idea to have
> > active travels at Nationals if the entire season has been spent
> > playing without active travels (for most teams)?
>
>
thefan
> On Mar 10, 12:14 pm, frizbrains <frizbra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Isn't one other point (and maybe the most important - depending on the
> > objective of the argument) is that it might not be a good idea to have
> > active travels at Nationals if the entire season has been spent
> > playing without active travels (for most teams)?
>
>
> > I thought I read Colin agreeing that active travels will probably
> > happen, he just doesn't think they should be implemented at
> > Nationals.
>
this sort of situation really just complicates the debate. there is
no way that the rule enforcement discussion should include the
argument that this or that proposal is worse because the players won't
be used to it when they see it for the first time (for most) at the
premier event of the season, nationals.
what other sport would ever consider implementing a new rule or rule
enforcement policy at its highest stakes event?
Mitch
> this sort of situation really just complicates the debate. there is
> no way that the rule enforcement discussion should include the
> argument that this or that proposal is worse because the players won't
> be used to it when they see it for the first time (for most) at the
> premier event of the season, nationals.
>
> what other sport would ever consider implementing a new rule or rule
> enforcement policy at its highest stakes event?
i think the "don't do it in the middle of the year" is a very
reasonable argument, but it comes at a huge cost. Given that for the
foreseeable future the majority of regular season games will be played
without observers, it means a change to active travels is ~10 years
away at the least. First, you'd have to get to the stage where any
team that were to make nationals sees observers at every game. Then,
once you've reached that critical mass of observers, you'd need to go
back and change how they are observing. That's a long timeline
(mainly the first part of reaching critical mass).
As for the consequence of changing midstream...we actually have data.
Last years nationals changed to active up/down calls. (They were 1
vote shy of active travel calls). Last year's nationals went very
smoothly. There weren't many (if any) complaints about the active up/
down calls. There were praises for it. Active travels would
admittedly be a bigger step, but the world didn't end with the smaller
implementation of active up/down.
For the active travel tournies I've worked, it's been pretty smooth.
the slight problems of a few players being unfamiliar with the setup
("can I still call travells too?" type questions) can be easily
alleviated with a well thought out communication (FAQ style) to the
teams.
just some random thoughts on the "change midstream" issue.
frizbrains
Good point. My same question remains (though to a lesser degree,
because I do think active stalls would be more easily accepted).
Basically - are people arguing that these calls should or should not
be implemented at Nationals? (there was some experimentation with
rules changes last year as others pointed out). Or are people arguing
that these ideas (active stalls/active travels) should or should not
ever be implemented?
The parameters...or the goals of the discussion and the individuals
are unclear to me (as a reader).
Colin
Sounds like you're pretty on top of it. I initiated the discussion by
suggesting that there were some potential downsides of the experiments
and that I probably would not vote for them at Nationals this year if
I were a player. That is the key to the discussion. Informing
players of what's going on so they can make an intelligent decision
about their 2010 College Nationals experience. But I think many of
the responses have blurred the issue and are simply discussing what
would be best for the sport somewhere down the line in the future.
Maybe some of them think it should happen immediately.
But there are two questions. 1) Where should be take officiating in
Ultimate, and 2) How should we get there? Some people seem only to be
concerned about 1). I am concerned about both. Reaching a good
result in the end does not justify ruining a College Nationals
experience for a bunch of teams, in my view.
Implementing changes such that Nationals is played under drastically
different conditions than the rest of the season is a bad idea. And
using Nationals as the testing ground for unproven, unrefined
experimentation is a bad idea. I think it is disrespectful to the
College players. Why aren't we ever monkeying with Club Nationals?
I understand the benefits/goals of the active calls (though there are
many potential goals) and I agree with much of it. I just have not
heard any compelling arguments for implementing them this year at
Nationals.
Travels. Clearly the observer nearly always has a better view than th
emarker. Stalls. I guess maybe an observer could be a better counter
than the marker -- uniformity is a valid point, though.
But there's nothing to indicate that markers are physically unable to
count to ten in nine seconds or more. I would be very surprised if
every single marker in the country could not easily do this, given an
incentive to do so.
And like I said last year, we should establish a standard for calling
active travels that provides the best experience for players and
spectators at Nationals. That standard is not calling every single
tiny travel that is committed by a bunch of players who are not
experienced with the system and are thrown into it based on
unreasonable planning..
If the goal is to address problems of player misbehavior at the 2010
College Championships, then we should do it through the Misconduct
System. That includes cheating travel calls and stall counts, as well
as really irresponsible travel calls and stall counts (it's not hard
to get it right).
If the goal is to experiment with some new observer duties that may
make the game drastically different than all the games during the
college season, then that experiment should not happen at the College
Championships. That should happen exactly how the UOA is doing it (at
tournaments throughout the season), except with better data collection
and more genuine, objective reporting on the results, and possibly
more intensive rules knowledge testing.
Obviously, as Mike G pointed out, this means the UPA is going to have
to find someone to write decent survey questions. If they're going to
all the trouble of creating a survey, convincing members to fill it
out, and then collecting the data, then it is well worth getting a
competent survey-writer to draft the questions and answers and make
sure they will generate useful information.
-Colin
Colin
> Active travels would
> admittedly be a bigger step, but the world didn't end with the smaller
> implementation of active up/down.
Yes. The world didn't end when we made a change to something that
comes up, on average, less than once a game. I think the difference
in size of step is so large as to make it not really comparable at
all.
What should happen is the UPA should change the way it implements
experimentation. We shouldn't wait 10 years for active travels. We
should wait one year. And we should immediately start with the TMFs.
And start experimenting more aggressively (financially self-sufficient
experimental events) like the UOA. Have the players vote on whether
every observed college tournament in the 2010-2011 season will have
active travels. This is what should have happened last year. We also
should get an explanation as to why no experimentation happens with
the Club Series. I suspect the club players would be more vocal and
more involved in opposing potentially crappy or unrefined
experimentation.
-Colin
Colin
2. The bigger issue is how the UPA is implementing it. College
Nationals should not be a testing ground for unrefined ideas that may
have significant negative impacts -- even if you dupe some college
kids into voting for it without thinking.
Active stall counts. Hard for the players, especially throwers, to
hear under many conditions, nearly impossible for Observers to
reliably hear marking violations called. Questions arise over how to
address marking violations when called (are you really going to make
the marker back up to the limits of disc space before you start
counting again?). Strain on Observer voices (silent 1-5 makes it
better).
If the goal is to ensure a fair stall count and you don't like TMFs,
then what about active fast count calls? The marker is facing the
observer -- more likely to hear it. And you eliminate many of the
implementation problems of active stall counts.
-Colin
On Mar 10, 8:16 am, ckerr4 <chaske...@gmail.com> wrote:
stephenghubbard
the observer hearing marking violations is the observer
administer them:
Reduction and pause of the count when they occur IN THE
OPINION of the observer. There would have to be some signal
and verbalization of the first one so that the thrower can
stop play if he chooses for another. OR you could remove the
option to stop play on the second.
I bet you would see a lot more legal marks.
I know this raises a ton of problems, but I like that it
takes marking violations off the throwers mind. I know that
I NEVER call disc space or double team because I am thinking
about what I want to do with the disc. Thinking about the
marking violations totally fucks my focus.
Observer:
"Stalling 1... ... ......Five... Discspace 5!... ...7
..discspace6!... 7... 8.. Doubleteam7!... 8...9...10
stall"
All with appropriate hand signals
Mitch
> On Mar 10, 4:11 pm, Mitch <mgd.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Active travels would
> > admittedly be a bigger step, but the world didn't end with the smaller
> > implementation of active up/down.
>
> Yes. The world didn't end when we made a change to something that
> comes up, on average, less than once a game. I think the difference
> in size of step is so large as to make it not really comparable at
> all.
while i agree they are very different in scope, the changes are still
mildly comparable. First, active up/down is more than once per game.
If you really want to get technical, it is exactly the same number of
calls as travel as you would judge every throw and every
catch....travel/no travel.....up/down. Every throw. It's a 1:1 ratio
(more up/down if you count receiving the pull). But to look at things
realistically, there are usually a handful of "close" catches and a
few handfuls of close travels. I still have yet to work a single
active travel game with lots of travel calls. Certainly nowhere near
the games i've watched/played in with lots of player called travels.
> What should happen is the UPA should change the way it implements
> experimentation. We shouldn't wait 10 years for active travels. We
> should wait one year. And we should immediately start with the TMFs.
> And start experimenting more aggressively (financially self-sufficient
> experimental events) like the UOA. Have the players vote on whether
> every observed college tournament in the 2010-2011 season will have
> active travels. This is what should have happened last year.
Ok...so players would vote to have observers with active travels this
year. That would change how many tournaments? How many college
tournies have observers? Very few seem to have them. And the way
things are currently going, most, or near most of the ones with them
are UOA, meaning they already have them, or are one of the
experimental sites. Like I said, I agree that it is a VERY reasonable
argument....don't change things mid stream. But whether you change
them mid stream or not, the practical implementation would still
result in most games having player called travels with no TMFs since
the VAST majority of games are unobserved. No matter the choice
(aggressive TMF vs active), observed Nationals games will be different
than most regular season, sectional, and regional games. Nationals is
100% observed. Regionals is probably 50% at the highest, possibly 0%
at the lowest, probably 0-10% for sectionals, and probably 0-5% for
regular season.
Without lots and lots of observers, pre-regionals/nationals will
always be different than nationals. There isn't a good way around it.
> We also
> should get an explanation as to why no experimentation happens with
> the Club Series.
Agreed. We should get a lot of explanations on a lot of things.
Colin
Agreed on most of the other stuff. Not sure I agree up/down comes up
close to as frequently as travels. Depends on the game some. Very
few up/down calls for me this past weekend. Very few at College
Nationals last year. They do come up occasionally, but it's not real
common..
Pre-nationals may always be different than nationals. But it's within
our control whether it's pretty similar or very different. It's not
like we're past the point of no return simply because it is
Nationals.
Pretty similar is a good thing. Very different is not good for
Nationals. Very different is good for experimental events that are
not Nationals.
Colin
>
> > On Mar 10, 4:11 pm, Mitch <mgd.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Active travels would
> > > admittedly be a bigger step, but the world didn't end with the smaller
> > > implementation of active up/down.
>
> > Yes. The world didn't end when we made a change to something that
> > comes up, on average, less than once a game. I think the difference
> > in size of step is so large as to make it not really comparable at
> > all.
>
> while i agree they are very different in scope, the changes are still
> mildly comparable.
Oh. Very different in scope, but mildly comparable. I didn't read
carefully enough before. Yeah, maybe. Sometimes. We're dealing in
an acceptable range of non-absolutes. Moderate statements. I like
that. Refreshing. I stand by my stronger original statement, based
on my experience, but I can certainly believe you based on yours.
Mitch
> Pre-nationals may always be different than nationals. But it's within
> our control whether it's pretty similar or very different. It's not
> like we're past the point of no return simply because it is
> Nationals.
>
> Pretty similar is a good thing. Very different is not good for
> Nationals. Very different is good for experimental events that are
> not Nationals.
You said you would be fine if the players voted at the beginning of
the season for active travels. You are saying active travels versus
player travels are very different. Since a vote at the beginning of
this year for active travels would still result in almost all pre-
nationals games being player travel since most games are unobserved,
pre-nationals games would be very different than nationals games until
we have enough observers that most/all games are observed throughout
the season. Thus this logically reasonable requirement of no "very
different" setup becomes logistically unreasonable.
I think the reasonable compromise is don't change the rules midstream
in terms of what's legal/illegal, but how those rules are implemented
is open to mild tweaking within reason. The travel rules wouldn't be
changing (leave mike's ground tap exclusion out as that is a rule
change). Just my opinion. Obviously, the only opinions that will
likely count are the 20 teams that make it to Madison.
Mitch
> One novel idea to deal with the implementation problems with
> the observer hearing marking violations is the observer
> administer them:
UOA setup is observer handles double teams, but let's the players deal
with disc scape or vision blocking. In ~70 games (UPA/UOA), i've
heard a disc space once. Currently, if the observers took over disc
space, they'd basically get to about 1 and not get past it more than
once or twice. Completely legal marks are rare. Players would
adjust, but it might take a while. Definitely not something you'd
want to experiment at nationals with given it would effectively
eliminate the stall during the player's adjustment time.
Colin
> On Mar 10, 9:46 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pre-nationals may always be different than nationals. But it's within
> > our control whether it's pretty similar or very different. It's not
> > like we're past the point of no return simply because it is
> > Nationals.
>
> > Pretty similar is a good thing. Very different is not good for
> > Nationals. Very different is good for experimental events that are
> > not Nationals.
>
> You said you would be fine if the players voted at the beginning of
> the season for active travels. You are saying active travels versus
> player travels are very different. Since a vote at the beginning of
> this year for active travels would still result in almost all pre-
> nationals games being player travel since most games are unobserved,
> pre-nationals games would be very different than nationals games until
> we have enough observers that most/all games are observed throughout
> the season. Thus this logically reasonable requirement of no "very
> different" setup becomes logistically unreasonable.
Forget the "very different" standard. You're nit-picking. Let's go
with much, much, much, way, way, way better. I should add, voting on
a season's worth of experimentation and then having another vote to
determine whether it happens at Nationals is the way to go.
I accept your premise that the nature of the observer program creates
some necessary difference between Nationals and the regular season.
Standardizing experimentation over the course of a year minmizes,
rather than eliminates that difference.
When I played in college, we would typically play in some observed
games at no less than 4-5 tournaments before Nationals. Presumably
there are more available opportunities now, four years later. That is
a significant amount of experience to get a chance to learn the
system, make adjustments, figure out if you like it, etc.
In addition, the UPA should actively solicit/encourage financially
self-sufficient experimental observed events. Little stuff that's
easy to coordinate. Get four observers and one soccer field (two
ultimate fields) in Columbus and invite Michigan, MSU, OSU, Indiana,
and Illinois for a round robin. Easy. You just likely got 2-3 teams
that'll be at Nationals.
It would not be hard to drastically reduce the shock factor of
Nationals experimentation for the likely Nationals-bound teams. Nit-
pick little side points all you want, but I am remaining perfectly
consistent and this main point remains totally valid and I think we
agree on it.
-Colin
Mitch
>
> Forget the "very different" standard. You're nit-picking.
I'm not nit-picking, I'm pointing out reality.
> I accept your premise that the nature of the observer program creates
> some necessary difference between Nationals and the regular season.
> Standardizing experimentation over the course of a year minmizes,
> rather than eliminates that difference.
Minimize? The difference will be pretty huge instead of huge then?
> When I played in college, we would typically play in some observed
> games at no less than 4-5 tournaments before Nationals. Presumably
> there are more available opportunities now, four years later. That is
> a significant amount of experience to get a chance to learn the
> system, make adjustments, figure out if you like it, etc.
>
> In addition, the UPA should actively solicit/encourage financially
> self-sufficient experimental observed events. Little stuff that's
> easy to coordinate. Get four observers and one soccer field (two
> ultimate fields) in Columbus and invite Michigan, MSU, OSU, Indiana,
> and Illinois for a round robin. Easy. You just likely got 2-3 teams
> that'll be at Nationals.
How about Pitt, UVA, Florida, Notre Dame, NC State, Delaware, and
Cornell? That will have happened over the course of 3 UOA tournies.
> It would not be hard to drastically reduce the shock factor of
> Nationals experimentation for the likely Nationals-bound teams. Nit-
> pick little side points all you want, but I am remaining perfectly
> consistent and this main point remains totally valid and I think we
> agree on it.
It's not nit-picking at all. It's reality. No matter how you do it,
it will be different. Very different. I don't agree at all that "very
different" is not "way way way better." Very different is bad, but
logistically, there just isn't a good way around it, so I could
justfiy biting the bullet it the teams chose to do it this year. I'm
not saying they'd be dumb not to or anything along those lines, I just
don't see jumping into it as crazy. I think it can be done pretty
well. Under your approach, I'm willing to bet one of the 20 teams
will get to nationals with 2, 1, or possibly 0 games under the
"experimented system." How many observed games did Luther get to play
before Nationals last year versus, say, Stanford or Colorado?
Colin
> On Mar 11, 5:21 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Forget the "very different" standard. You're nit-picking.
>
> I'm not nit-picking, I'm pointing out reality.
Ok. And an up/down call and a travel call are "technically" made on
every single throw so therefore occur equally frequently.. No nit-
picking. You're in that mode, Mitch. And you continue with this
through the rest of the post, ignoring the substance and harping on
unrelated side points.. Why are you throwing in all this irrelevant
crap? I'm disappointed. And I will not reply to anything else
written in the same vein.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example:
Colin: Right now, the vast majority of teams have almost no experience
with the experimentation going into Nationals. By implementing the
experiment at all observed events throughout the season and
encouraging additional experimental events, we would greatly increase
teams' exposure to the experiments and drastically reduce the shock
factor at Nationals.
Mitch: But under your approach I bet one out of twenty teams still
wouldn't have that much exposure to it before Nationals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give me a break. What's your problem? This is uncharacteristic for
you.
-Colin
ulticritic
> One novel idea to deal with the implementation problems with
> the observer hearing marking violations is the observer
> administer them:
or just fuck ALL THE DUMBSHIT and just make em full blown refs and be
done with all this sillyness. i mean, isnt that whats gonna happen
one day anyway. why not just make a clean break.......like ripping a
bandaid off your skin.......one quick motion and there will be less
pain.
Mitch
> On Mar 12, 12:00 am, Mitch <mgd.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 5:21 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Forget the "very different" standard. You're nit-picking.
>
> > I'm not nit-picking, I'm pointing out reality.
>
> Ok. And an up/down call and a travel call are "technically" made on
> every single throw so therefore occur equally frequently.. No nit-
> picking. You're in that mode, Mitch. And you continue with this
> through the rest of the post, ignoring the substance and harping on
> unrelated side points.. Why are you throwing in all this irrelevant
> crap? I'm disappointed. And I will not reply to anything else
> written in the same vein.
Colin, please go back and read what I wrote. Yes, I did say that
technically those calls are made every throw (and they are). The very
next words were "But to look at things realistically." That is
acknowledging that the previous statement, while technically true, is
not the proper way to look at it. It was just pointing out that an
observer is looking to see whether a player has traveled the same
number of times they look to see if a disc is caught. I don't think
that's irrelevant.
> Colin: Right now, the vast majority of teams have almost no experience
> with the experimentation going into Nationals. By implementing the
> experiment at all observed events throughout the season and
> encouraging additional experimental events, we would greatly increase
> teams' exposure to the experiments and drastically reduce the shock
> factor at Nationals.
>
> Mitch: But under your approach I bet one out of twenty teams still
> wouldn't have that much exposure to it before Nationals.
Absolutely. That's exactly my point. Neither way meets a reasonable
"don't change things midstream" requirement. Neither ever will until
most, if not all games are observed. While I like this reasonable
requirement, it's logistical problems make it an unreasonable
requirement unless we can increase the number of active (meaning
working many tournies, not making active calls) by probably two orders
of magnitude very quickly.
> Give me a break. What's your problem? This is uncharacteristic for
> you.
>
> -Colin
That's pretty much what I've thought of your entries. While you make
some your usual reasonable points, you are dismissing anything
different, no matter where it lies in the spectrum of reasonableness.
ulticritic
>
> That's pretty much what I've thought of your entries. While you make
> some your usual reasonable points, you are dismissing anything
> different, no matter where it lies in the spectrum of reasonableness.
ouch!.....thats gotta hurt
Mitch
i'd say that of everything you've ever posted. i just know Colin
usually doesn't take that approach, so he can be reasoned with.
whether i agree with any particular idea you have, you're so far
beyond working with, it's pointless.
Colin
> On Mar 12, 12:45 am, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 12, 12:00 am, Mitch <mgd.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 11, 5:21 pm, Colin <colinmcint...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Forget the "very different" standard. You're nit-picking.
>
> > > I'm not nit-picking, I'm pointing out reality.
>
> > Ok. And an up/down call and a travel call are "technically" made on
> > every single throw so therefore occur equally frequently.. No nit-
> > picking. You're in that mode, Mitch. And you continue with this
> > through the rest of the post, ignoring the substance and harping on
> > unrelated side points.. Why are you throwing in all this irrelevant
> > crap? I'm disappointed. And I will not reply to anything else
> > written in the same vein.
>
> that's irrelevant.
I read it. And I was irritated that you even included it. It is also
never relevant for me to say, "well, technically, there's an in/out
call made every time a player catches the disc in the middle of the
field."
>
> > Colin: Right now, the vast majority of teams have almost no experience
> > with the experimentation going into Nationals. By implementing the
> > experiment at all observed events throughout the season and
> > encouraging additional experimental events, we would greatly increase
> > teams' exposure to the experiments and drastically reduce the shock
> > factor at Nationals.
>
> > Mitch: But under your approach I bet one out of twenty teams still
> > wouldn't have that much exposure to it before Nationals.
>
> Absolutely. That's exactly my point. Neither way meets a reasonable
> "don't change things midstream" requirement. Neither ever will until
> most, if not all games are observed. While I like this reasonable
> requirement, it's logistical problems make it an unreasonable
> requirement unless we can increase the number of active (meaning
> working many tournies, not making active calls) by probably two orders
> of magnitude very quickly.
Well, I went to 4-5 tournaments with observers for some of my games
per season when I played. Under the current schedule, I'd have played
zero (I believe) tournaments with active observer calls. Four to five
sounds a lot better. Plus, as I mentioned, specific attempts to
provide experimental games to teams likely to qualify, which would be
easy to do.
It seems to me that you're throwing up your hands instead of
recognizing that a major improvement is possible and should be
pursued. Recognizing the logistical concern, I have said that we
should at least try to work to give players significant experience
under the experiments and help them make an intelligent voting
decision. That's not what's being done for 2010. I suggested a
method for 2011. You're ignoring significant degrees of improvement
and just staying "different is different, regardless of degree." And
that's really strange.
> > Give me a break. What's your problem? This is uncharacteristic for
> > you.
>
> > -Colin
>
> That's pretty much what I've thought of your entries. While you make
> some your usual reasonable points, you are dismissing anything
> different, no matter where it lies in the spectrum of reasonableness.
What is reasonable about having players make a largely uninformed vote
on an unrefined change to be implemented at the most important
tournament of the year? Especially when that change has greater
potential than anything ever before to have a detrimental effect on
the game? What's reasonable about establishing a standard for calling
travels that creates this problem, without ever consulting any of the
players on it? I could be 100% on board for active travels in 2011,
done right. But there are too many unresolved issues for 2010. Maybe
some of them will get resolved.
All of this lies far on the unreasonable end of the spectrum. And
I've suggested all kinds of ways to improve it. What am I
dismissing? I am attempting to address every point raised and
providing reasoning supporting my position. I have not dismissed
anything out of hand without providing reasoning and analysis, have I?
You're the one saying "different is different" and refusing to discuss
it, regardless of where it lies on the spectrum of difference.
Peterson
it out to be.
We aren't talking about changing the disc weight or size,
the field dimensions, # of players etc...
We aren't talking about actually changing the rules of the
game.
We are talking about making the game be officiated in a more
objective manner... that's it!
It won't ruin anyone's national's experience unless one of
two situations existed.
1. The team/player has been getting away with travelling
all the time and no one ever called it on them. Seems
unlikely for a nationals level team.
2. The team/player likes to use imaginary travel calls as a
defensive tactic to bring back hucks and stop momentum.
Also, has the UPA even made any announcement about possible
new observer duties or voting on new observer duties at this
year's nationals. Shockingly, I have spend a few minutes on
their website and was unable to find anything mentioning
these issues in their college championship page. By the
way, that fancy newly designed site they have is a dream to
navigate and a wonderful communication vehicle. Oops-- that
was a comment I was saving for 5 years from now when they
actually do something to improve it.
Peterson
joe
i couldnt find the voting information either, does it exist? maybe the
upa should add a question about redesigning the webpage this decade.
so that way instead of it being 2010 and the webpage looking like it
was from 1993, it can be 2020 and the webpage can look like it is from
2005.
Colin
> it out to be.
Is it a big deal? If I were a player, I'd think it was. As someone
actively involved in this stuff and trying to make sure it's done
right in a way that improves the players' experience as much as
possible, I think it's pretty important.
But not so important that it's worth continuing to participate in this
discussion on this forum.
Closing comment is that teams should make sure to consider all sides
of the issue, all the potential impacts of the experiments, and their
own personal preferences and priorities before voting. If 20 teams in
each division make an informed, well-considered decision, I will be
perfectly happy, regardless of outcome. Reading RSD isn't going to do
much to help on either count, though.
-Colin
Mitch
> It seems to me that you're throwing up your hands instead of
> recognizing that a major improvement is possible and should be
> pursued.
absolutely not. i said I'd be ok with status quo, active, or TMFs.
I'm saying if the decision is made based on not changing until we are
ready to make things consistent, i think we will be waiting a while.
> Recognizing the logistical concern, I have said that we
> should at least try to work to give players significant experience
> under the experiments and help them make an intelligent voting
> decision. That's not what's being done for 2010.
It isn't being done extensively by the UPA. I agree with that. But
the UPA tournies aren't the only ones. The UPA put changes to vote
last year, and the players took some of it, 1 vote shy from taking
more of it. So obviously there are teams that want this change to
come. What was the response the next year? Greatly increased
experimentation? Not from the UPA. They actually went backwards with
the sanctioning by requiring more uniformity (which I understand the
logic behind, i just think it's incomplete logic), allowing for less
experimentation. Also, what is significant experience?
> I suggested a
> method for 2011. You're ignoring significant degrees of improvement
> and just staying "different is different, regardless of degree." And
> that's really strange.
I'm not ignoring the different degrees of different, I just don't feel
it would be as different (or more aptly, a worse experience) as you
do. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe others are wrong. How many active travel
tournies has there been? A dozen or so. How many have had noticable
increases in the number of travels called? I haven't heard of any.
I've participated in three and none saw increases. I've seen/heard
some having less, but none with more. Also, I agree with your
approach for 2011. I just don't think players have to sacrifice any
chance for change in 2010, nor do I see the UPA exactly racing to take
your approach. I think if the players are wanting the change, I think
they may have to be proactive.
> What is reasonable about having players make a largely uninformed vote
> on an unrefined change to be implemented at the most important
> tournament of the year? Especially when that change has greater
> potential than anything ever before to have a detrimental effect on
> the game? What's reasonable about establishing a standard for calling
> travels that creates this problem, without ever consulting any of the
> players on it?
The players will be the only votes (good thing). And the players are
providing feedback. Just not much that you feel is credible for some
reason that I don't get.
> All of this lies far on the unreasonable end of the spectrum.
That i disagree with, but it's an opinion, so it should surprise
anyone that it varies.
> And
> I've suggested all kinds of ways to improve it. What am I
> dismissing? I am attempting to address every point raised and
> providing reasoning supporting my position. I have not dismissed
> anything out of hand without providing reasoning and analysis, have I?
The UOA tourney feedback. You called it a spirit score. It's not.
It's not rate some abstract quality of a team. Active travel makes
the game better?...1 to 5. Active stall makes the games better?....1
to 5. Better is abstract, but it's directionally indicative. The
feedback is from teams from up north, down south, teams with good
national rankings, teams with bad national rankings. Older programs,
newer programs. The only thing it isn't is midwest and western teams
(Notre Dame and North Texas this weekend, that should help). You say
you want player input, but when it's provided, you dismissed it
completely. You say you want national caliber teams involved...they
have been. But the input, again, doesn't count for some reason. Why
is this feedback akin to a spirit score? It seems to be much of what
you are asking for. Why would OSU, Michigan, State, and Notre Dame
playing as you suggested give non-spirit score information while Pitt,
UVA, Florida, NC State and Cornell magically provides only spirit
score input? What am I missing?
> You're the one saying "different is different" and refusing to discuss
> it, regardless of where it lies on the spectrum of difference.
All this started because you said that changing midstream would make
things different between the season and nationals. I'm just pointing
out that same standard would apply to ratcheting up TMFs on travel
calls as you suggested. I thought you were talking automatic TMF for
bad travel call since that's how you had described your opinion
earlier in the year, so maybe it's more different than when I started
replying, but other things have come up since.
I have personal no beef with you, if that's how you are taking all of
this. I value your opinion just as I value many people's opinions.
I'm just trying to understand why the work that's been done this year
and last carries basically no value.
ulticritic
hey, i'm on your side
ulticritic
>
> Closing comment is that teams should make sure to consider all sides
> of the issue, all the potential impacts of the experiments, and their
> own personal preferences and priorities before voting.
isnt that what most people do before deciding to do most anything?
are you afraid these guys will flip a coin to make a decision or
somthing? and its obvious that the only people you are concerned with
here are the ones that are "thinking" about voting for the change.
---------------------------------------------------------------
If 20 teams in
> each division make an informed, well-considered decision, I will be
> perfectly happy, regardless of outcome.
again, what other kind of decision would they make?
Reading RSD isn't going to do
> much to help on either count, though.
oh i think it will do a lot.......as most people here seem to be in
favor of changing to active travel calls......and if they see/read all
the positive feedback they might be more likely to want to try
it.....then once they try it they will voice/write support of
it......via rsd for someone else to read.....and so on.....and so
forth.